Fertilizer Application

Thread: Phosporus/AM Fungi

P is a political issue that has mythology wrapped around it so tightly that it is hard to make sense of the realities...

I was lead to believe over the years that AMF was able to "MINE" P from otherwise inaccessible sources by the NM(non-mycor) plant hairs alone...
We are now also supposed to believe that P "LEACHES" though soils into waterways becuz of an experiment that seem to indicate that tiny amounts did indeed move through a box full of dirt...

Both of those exaggerated ideas have been promoted to really put a PC spin on outlawing P and attacking the food industry unnecessarily, IMHO...

I don't know if there can be an non-emotional school girl attitude, free, discussion about an Agenda 21 propaganda piece, but I'm more interested in what is sensible for lawncare and what ,,, if anything,,, can be done to help our lawns access adequate P without applying new sources 'all the time'...
[If this turns into another "bullet in my head" childish crybaby outburst,,, I will be leaving the discussion immediately(unfortunately this HAS TO BE ADDRESSED NOWDAYS)]

Currently my interest lies in the cycling of "Available P" through the clippings and leaves being mulched into the turf... I have my idea and a couple of others' thoughts on the subject, but still looking for a definitive non-PC reality of P in the lawn...

__________________
*
Now that I know that clay's texture(platelets) has nothing to do with water infiltration, percolation, or drainage,,, I wonder what does...
*

Thanks for the topic Smallaxe. An NC state article stated that "Because soils in NC are so naturally low in Phosphorous it is usually safe to add 1 to 2 lbs. per 1000 sq. feet." I am of the opinion that there is such a thing as low phosphorous levels in soils unless some credible scientific data can prove otherwise. Banning phosphorous seems kind of ridiculous to me...

Sounds like you believe everything you read,,,, wait,,,, maybe you don't. Guess it depends on the source. Who's the real source? Maybe we all live in conspiracy. Oh no,,, there's a knock at my door. Wait its just in my head. Maybe the most politically motivated are the gov politicos. Maybe that's alot of maybe's. Let me think man!

I don't see how these facts demerit the usage of phosphorous fertilizer when used correctly (when not applied excessively). The fact remains that phosphorous is a necessary mineral that is many times lacking in soil. Perhaps it would be better to discuss which types of fertilizer do not cause as much pollution. Rock phosphate?

"organic fertilizers remain more stable in soil, release slower, and are thus less likely to add to water pollution than synthetic fertilizers."

I don't see how these facts demerit the usage of phosphorous fertilizer when used correctly (when not applied excessively). The fact remains that phosphorous is a necessary mineral that is many times lacking in soil. Perhaps it would be better to discuss which types of fertilizer do not cause as much pollution. Rock phosphate?

"organic fertilizers remain more stable in soil, release slower, and are thus less likely to add to water pollution than synthetic fertilizers."

"Because of its high reactivity, phosphorus exists in combined form with other elements. Microorganisms produce acids that form soluble phosphate from insoluble phosphorus compounds. The phosphates are utilized by algae and terrestrial green plants, which in turn pass into the bodies of animal consumers. Upon death and decay of organisms, phosphates are released for recycling."

It talks about the 'weathering of rocks also and how that moves P eventually into the oceans,,, but then we already knew that in 14 million years the entire land mass of the planet will be eroded below sea level...

Here is the final 'summary statement' of the short article:"Because of the steady diversion of phosphorus into the oceans, the element must be added (in fertilizers) to soils to maintain fertility and agricultural productivity."

My idea is that this article is saying that microbes DO break down insoluable P to become soluable P and that this would be even more likely when the P was already in a once living organism... unfortunately I haven't found much of that scenario on the internet...

__________________
*
Now that I know that clay's texture(platelets) has nothing to do with water infiltration, percolation, or drainage,,, I wonder what does...
*

I don't see how these facts demerit the usage of phosphorous fertilizer when used correctly (when not applied excessively).

You need to read the original post again for the purpose of the post. Furthermore, how many people actually soil test (assuming they sample correctly) to determine if P is needed and how much? How many people actually know how to identify a P deficiency in a plant? Based on what I see, both on this site and out in the field that number is at best 1 in 1000. So ignoring the reason for the post, tell me how do the facts apply here with respect to your statement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victorsaur

The fact remains that phosphorous is a necessary mineral that is many times lacking in soil.

And you are basing this conclusion on what? An extensive review of soil chemical properties and current nutrient analysis from around the country? How about this website where soil tests people have posted more times than not show excess P?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victorsaur

Perhaps it would be better to discuss which types of fertilizer do not cause as much pollution. Rock phosphate?

Perhaps it would be better if some people would understand how nutrients can move off-site via surface and subsurface flow and potentially become a source pollution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victorsaur

"organic fertilizers remain more stable in soil, release slower, and are thus less likely to add to water pollution than synthetic fertilizers."

Perhaps you might want to conduct a search on pig and poultry manure as it applies to phosphorus pollution.

And you are basing this conclusion on what? An extensive review of soil chemical properties and current nutrient analysis from around the country? How about this website where soil tests people have posted more times than not show excess P?

I'm basing this concolusion on an article written by NC State University that states the soil in this area is so lacking in phosphorous that it is generally a good idea to add it. Not only this particular article, but advice from a professional that has been working in this area for many years and for big companies in the area. As soil is particular area by area, what other people post about levels of P won't necessarily reflect the natural soil type of Asheville's mountain soil which is naturally lacking in P, Mg, and Ca, also taken from an official NCSU article...

Furthermore most lawns in this area are infested with clovers. This is only possible because the tall fescue which is the standard grass around here cannot compete with their root systems which is a symptom of phosphorous lacking in soil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiril

Perhaps it would be better if some people would understand how nutrients can move off-site via surface and subsurface flow and potentially become a source pollution.

Let's be pragmatic. If I refuse to fertilize with P, people will continue to do so because they simply don't care. If, however, I was able to find a way to minimize the risk of runoff pollution while still providing P then I would be a lot more likely to make a positive change on the issue that you bring up. The local master gardener extension states that correctly applying P will not pose a risk of pollution. Although your concerns are legitimate we need to be realistic about what will reduce phosphorous pollution.